Actually they have a huge support network of senior players and judges and get a very diverse set of opinions. The facts of the matter are that the decision is valid and accomplishes what their goal was without creating rules issues. In fact the rules are simpler now, than before the change.

But here is the caveat, if you don't like the rule change don't play with it. The rules specifically support House rules. I think you will find that they sky isn't falling after all.

Actually they have a huge support network of senior players and judges and get a very diverse set of opinions. The facts of the matter are that the decision is valid and accomplishes what their goal was without creating rules issues. In fact the rules are simpler now, than before the change.

But here is the caveat, if you don't like the rule change don't play with it. The rules specifically support House rules. I think you will find that they sky isn't falling after all.

Why not have the people that don't like tucking just houseban tucking?

This "social agreement" is total garbage. The format is open to a competitive nature and to some people thats whats fum about MTG playing your best against theirs and seeing who can foil who's plans first.

That's the social contract in action. If everybody is having fun playing super cutthroat, there is nothing wrong with that. The problems crop up when a mix of hardcore and casual decks are in the same game.

All the RC does is establish a baseline of what people can expect. "Nothing will take your commander away forever" is a pretty reasonable baseline.

Tucking doesn't take a commander away permanently. Just temporarily with proper cards in a deck. Just saying.

Because this rule change seems to be liked by the more casual players it makes sense to have them do housebans simply because they are probably already doing them. Whereas players that don't have a consistent casual group seem to be pro tucking it is harder to make house rules that allow it with strangers.

I think that all of the negativity is quite well summed by this statement. The change is not a ban or stopping of Tucking, it is a patch to some inconsistencies that didn't really exist at the time of codification and was made more relevant by the manifest mechanic in recent sets.

Tucking has NOT been stopped. It has NOT been banned. It is still perfectly viable for 100% of the cards.What HAS changed is now a more consistent effect on 1% of a deck's cards. Instead of going into the Library, the card MAY go to the Command Zone - just like Exile, Destroy, Bury, ...

If the ONLY thing tuck was being used for was Commanders, that is only 1% of an opponent's deck that the rule is affecting. How many people have played under the newly announced rules and found them completely disruptive to the game? Anyone, anyone, Buller?

I find it funny all the people commenting about the context of how the RC plays the game. Sheldon posts all his lists on other sites, and gives us several play by play accounts of his games a year. I know he has also posted several decks of other RC members, and some of those play by plays were accounts of the RC playing against each other.

The funniest part, most of the local playgroups think Sheldon's decks are too cut throat and competitive. My primary group seems to be on par with the Armada Games crowd, which is Sheldon's LGS. Our decks are tighter on theme and flavor, but that is a personal choice, and really does not effect the power level too much.

I imagine if I went to one of any of the nearby LGS, I would find many ranting against this change like so many on this forum. We have lots of LGS in the Atlanta area, but the vast majority of Commander players I know and play with never play in a LGS. There is a correlation there, just as I am confident the majority of people that play commander will embrace this change as improving the game.

Tucking doesn't take a commander away permanently. Just temporarily with proper cards in a deck. Just saying.

AKA the subtle pressure towards more tutors.

Or just the fact that I dont build commander decks to have to require my commander be in play to win. The deck should be able to win on its own, and the commander simply be a tool to help gain some competitive advantage but not a necessity.

Tucking doesn't take a commander away permanently. Just temporarily with proper cards in a deck. Just saying.

OK, I'm playing mono red. What are my options, again? Is there a lot in mono-white? How about a creatureless voltron mono-green? How about colorless?

Daramath wrote:

The deck should be able to win on its own, and the commander simply be a tool to help gain some competitive advantage but not a necessity.

Two problems with that argument: First, that is against the stated flavor of the format. Second, even if you do build your deck to work without the Commander, your deck becomes inherently weaker than every other deck at the table if your Commander has been tucked - and the blue/white player can do this consistently for 2-3 mana, and the black/red/green players can not.

This "social agreement" is total garbage. The format is open to a competitive nature and to some people thats whats fum about MTG playing your best against theirs and seeing who can foil who's plans first.

That's the social contract in action. If everybody is having fun playing super cutthroat, there is nothing wrong with that. The problems crop up when a mix of hardcore and casual decks are in the same game.

All the RC does is establish a baseline of what people can expect. "Nothing will take your commander away forever" is a pretty reasonable baseline.

Tucking doesn't take a commander away permanently. Just temporarily with proper cards in a deck. Just saying.

Then why complain about the tucking rule being changed, if it was not a big deal anyways?